Hand Guns should NOT be banned in the USA

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Sewer dwellers for the most part...

ES

LOL! Funny and true. Gets my rec.

Originally posted by Delmer
I would imagine that's exactly what the British said in 1776: "No civilian militia wou;ld stand a chance."

They didn't. It was the French army which ultimately defeated the English in the US, wasn't it?

Originally posted by Delmer
LOL! Perhaps "fear" and "scared" is what you feel when you think of me carrying a gun, shav. But it's not what I feel.

Yeah. Right.
The fact of the matter is that you are carrying a gun because you are scared of something. If you weren't scared of that something (unless you're hunting food), you wouldn't need the gun. Would you?

Originally posted by shavixmir
They didn't. It was the French army which ultimately defeated the English in the US, wasn't it?

The French?! Naaah.

The US didn't really win either. They just didn't quit.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
That's a completely different situation - technology is so much more of a factor today. The British military vs. American revolutionaries was musket on musket. That conflict didn't involve one side having access to M1A1's and Cobra gunships while the other side would be fighting with semiautomatic weapons at best.

Sort of like Vietnam.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
That's a completely different situation - technology is so much more of a factor today. The British military vs. American revolutionaries was musket on musket. That conflict didn't involve one side having access to M1A1's and Cobra gunships while the other side would be fighting with semiautomatic weapons at best.

Were the Afgahns out-gunned by the Russians in the 80's? What about US vs Vietnam?

ES

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yeah. Right.
The fact of the matter is that you are carrying a gun because you are scared of something. If you weren't scared of that something (unless you're hunting food), you wouldn't need the gun. Would you?

I like the gun, shav. I like the feel of the gun. I like the engineering. I like knowing that I can "reach out and touch someone" if I get lonely.

Originally posted by shavixmir
You need to defend your family against what?

Whatever. It may be I live in a bad neighborhood, or the mafia has a contract on me or my family, or some nut case is following my wife, or whatever I think is a reasonable threat to me or my family. There was a was a family killed recently by militants in the US just because the father took advantage of this constitutional rights to criticize their group on a web-board. A gun might have saved that family.

It is my prerogative to determine the level of threat and the appropriate response. Every person has a different situation and the freedom (and duty) to defend himself and his family by whatever means is legal.

Originally posted by Coletti
Whatever. It may be I live in a bad neighborhood, or the mafia has a contract on me or my family, or some nut case is following my wife, or whatever I think is a reasonable threat to me or my family. There was a was a family killed recently by militants in the US just because the father took advantage of this constitutional rights to criticize their group ...[text shortened]... ituation and the freedom (and duty) to defend himself and his family by whatever means is legal.

So you are scared.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Del you're the big winner, that's the right answer. But the 2nd Amendment is obsolete because the government has more, and bigger, guns than citizens could ever hope to acquire now. If it came down to it, a president would suspend the Constitiution and have the 82nd Airborne patrolling the streets of Washington D.C. No civilian militia would ever stand a chance against the might of the US military operating domestically.

All the more reason for a tank in every garage.

Originally posted by shavixmir
So you are scared.

If someone is scared, or happy, or bored, it does not matter.

Originally posted by Coletti
If someone is scared, or happy, or bored, it does not matter.

Yes it does.
Now answer the second question I posed.

🙂

You'll get there in the end my friend.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yes it does.
Now answer the second question I posed.

🙂

You'll get there in the end my friend.

Ok. For the sake of argument say the person is afraid.

Originally posted by Coletti
Whatever. It may be I live in a bad neighborhood, or the mafia has a contract on me or my family, or some nut case is following my wife, or whatever I think is a reasonable threat to me or my family. There was a was a family killed recently by militants in the US just because the father took advantage of this constitutional rights to criticize their group ...[text shortened]... ituation and the freedom (and duty) to defend himself and his family by whatever means is legal.

Actually it isn't your prerogative to determine the level of threat and the appropriate response. That is called vigilantism. What would be an appropriate response would be to alert the police if you feel threatened or if someone is stalking your wife. By your reasoning I could shoot you if, say, you cut me off in traffic. If I felt that you cutting me off was putting me in danger, possibly life threatening danger. Would that be okay? We employ people to defend you from harm. That is what seperates civilized society from anarchy. You don't get to decide on a case by case basis.

Coletti: "That guy looked at my wife and so I shot him"
Police: "Okay, you are going to jail for a long time"

That is how that scenario plays out.

I grew up in a very violent, gun ridden place (Miami) and never felt the need to carry a weapon for my own protection. I did have a shotgun in the house in case someone broke in, in which case it would be completely within the law to shoot them. As stated before the shotgun would be much more effective at this than a handgun.